. [52a] Fine sand, we do not suspect; coarse sand, we do suspect. Dirt from the road, we do suspect [because it too hardens].
E. [If it flew into] straw that was bundled into sheaves, we do suspect [injury]; [straw that was] not bundled, we do not suspect. [If it flew into stacks of] all the various types of wheat, we do suspect [injury]. All the various types of barley, we do suspect injury [some var.: we do not or the phrase is omitted].
F. All the various types of legumes — they are not subject to [suspicion that if a bird flew into a pile of them] there is hidden injury to its limbs, except for fenugreek. For chick peas, we do not suspect there is hidden injury to its limbs. For lentils, we do suspect there is hidden injury to its limbs. This is the general rule for this issue: For any goods that are slippery, we do not suspect there is hidden injury to its limbs. For any good that are not slippery, we do suspect there is hidden injury to its limbs.
XXIV.5
A. [A bird whose wings are] clipped [Rashi interprets that its wings were attached to a slat to prevent it from flying off] — R. Ashi permits [consumption of the bird if it crashed to the ground when it tried to fly off and might have injured itself in the process]. Amemar prohibits [consuming it since he suspects there is hidden injury to its limbs].
B. [If the case is that it was clipped] in one wing, all the authorities would agree that [if it tried to fly and crashed] it is permitted [to eat this bird for there is not sufficient cause to assume it was injured]. Where to they dispute? In [a case where] both wings were clipped [and the bird tried to fly and crashed]. The authority who declares it prohibited [to eat the bird] would say to you, “How can it stay aloft [with its wings clipped]?” And the authority who declares it permitted [to eat it] would say to you, “It is possible for it to stay aloft [by the force created] at the joint of its wing [even if they are clipped at the ends].”
C. Another version: [If the case is that it was clipped] in both wings, all the authorities would agree that [if it tried to fly and crashed] it is prohibited [to eat this bird for there is sufficient cause to assume it was injured]. Where to they dispute? In [a case where] one wing was clipped [and the bird tried to fly and crashed]. The authority who declares it permitted [to eat the bird] would say to you, “It is possible to fly with one wing clipped.” And the authority who declares it prohibited [to eat it] would say to you, “Since with one wing it cannot fly [because it is clipped], with the other it cannot fly [either].”
D. And the law is [ a bird that is clipped] in both wings [and tried to fly and crashed] is prohibited [for consumption because of suspicion of injury]. [A bird that is clipped] in one wing [and tried to fly and crashed] is permitted [for consumption].
XXV.1
A. [If] the greater number of its ribs are broken [M. 3:1 I]. Our rabbis taught: These constitute the majority of the ribs. Six on one side and six on the other. Or eleven on one side and one on the other. [Twelve of the twenty-two ribs must be broken.]
B. Said Ziri, “[The ribs must be broken] in that half nearest the spine.” Said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, said R. Yohanan, “[The ribs that must be broken are] those big ribs that have in them marrow.”
C. Said Ulla, Ben Zakkai said, “If the majority [of the ribs] were dislocated on one side [or] if the majority [of the ribs] were broken on both sides [it is terefah].” R. Yohanan said, “Whether [we deal with a case of ribs that were] dislocated or broken [it must be] a majority of them on both sides.”
D. Said Rab, “If a rib was dislocated along with its vertebra, it is terefah.” Said R. Kahana and R. Asi to Rab, “If the rib on both sides were dislocated and the vertebra remains intact, what is the law?” He said to them, “You have stated the case [equivalent in the law to the case] of the cleaved animal [cf. b. 21a, M. 1:4, V.2 C].” [The rule there is that the animal is deemed to be carrion.]
E. But has not Rab also stated [a case equivalent in the law to the case of] the cleaved animal? Rab stated [a case of the dislocation of] a rib without its vertebra. But lo he stated, “A rib along with its vertebra.” [Rab's statement was], “A rib along with half it vertebra.” We may derive the rule that R. Kahana and R. Asi stated [a case of the dislocation of] a rib without its vertebra. And he [Rab] stated to them [that it was equivalent to a case of] the cleaved animal. [This would not be a valid objection.]
F. But lo, said Ulla, Ben Zakkai said, “If the majority [of the ribs] were dislocated on one side [or] if the majority [of the ribs] were broken on both sides [it is terefah].” He would say to you, “There [where we require a majority, the case is where the ribs are] not opposite one another. Here [where we say it is equivalent to a case of a cleaved animal and is carrion, the case is where the ribs are] opposite one another.”
G. [But this leads to an inconsistency.] For said R. Yohanan [in C], “[It must be] a majority of them on both sides.” And in [the case of] a majority of them on both sides it is impossible that there not be at least one pair of ribs that [are broken that are] opposite one another.
H. [We can explain that this is not a direct contradiction] There [in the case referred to by Yohanan he speaks of the dislocation of] the rib but not its facet. Here [in the case of Kahana and Asi they speak of the dislocation of] the rib with its facet. If so [this leads to another inconsistency, to wit] this is Rab's [rule]! [We can respond that indeed it is but that] they had not heard Rab's [rule].
I. Why did they not pose the question to them as they did to Rab [as in D-E above]? They reasoned they would pose to him one question that would lead to an explanation of two matters. For if they posed to him a question about [the case of] one [rib that was dislocated] it would settle the matter [as follows]. If he said it is terefah [in the case of one rib] then certainly [in the case of] two [ribs it would be terefah]. [But] if he said it is valid [in the case of one rib] then the case of two ribs would still be a problem for us.
J. But if this is the case, then even now that they have posed to him the question regarding the case of two [ribs] it would settle the matter [as follows]. If he said it is valid [in the case of two ribs], then certainly [in the case of] one [rib it would be valid]. [But] if he said it is terefah [in the case of two ribs], then the case of one rib would still be a problem for us.
K. They reasoned [that if the posed the question in this way] he would become angry [and answer them concerning both, to wit], “If one [is dislocated and declared] terefah, is there any question concerning [the case of] two [dislocated ribs]?” But lo they did state matters to him in this way and he did not get angry with them. [Actually he did get angry.] When he said to them, “You have stated the case of an animal that was cleaved,” this was his way of expressing anger to them.
XXV.2
A. Said Rabbah bar Rab Shila, said R. Matna, said Samuel, “If a rib was dislocated from its socket, or if a majority of the skull was shattered, or if a majority of the membrane that covers the rumen [was torn], it is terefah.”
B. “If a rib was dislocated from its socket... it is terefah.” And they raised in contradiction to this: [52b] [As it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah], How much is deemed a deficiency in the spine [of a skeleton so that it does not render unclean objects in a tent]? The House of Shammai say, “Two vertebrae.” And the House of Hillel say, “One vertebra” [M. Ohal. 2:3]. And said R. Judah, said Samuel, “And the same [rule of deficiency in the spine applies] for [rendering the animal] a terefah.” [Cf. b. 42b, M. 3:1, I.1 O-P.]
C. [There is no contradiction.] Here [the case is] a rib [dislocated] without its vertebra. There the vertebra [is dislocated] but not its rib.
D. It is consistent [to say the case of a dislocated] rib without its vertebra does occur. But where does it occur that a vertebra [is dislocated] without its rib? In the lumbar region (Cashdan: where there are vertebrae but no ribs).
E. R. Oshaia raised an objection to this: This case should be taught as one of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and one of the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel.
F. Said to him Raba, “When this was brought up [as a dispute] it was brought up as an issue of [whether the spine with a missing vertebra transmits] uncleanness where it is the case that the House of Shammai rule more stringently [that the spine is complete enough to transmit uncleanness].”
XXV.3
A. [Said Rabbah bar Rab Shila, said R. Matna, said Samuel, “If a rib was dislocated from its socket,] or if a majority of the skull was shattered... [XXV.2 A]. R. Jeremiah posed a question, “[Does this mean] the majority of the diameter or of the circumference?” The question remains unresolved.
B. “... or if a majority of the membrane that covers the rumen [was torn], it is terefah [XXV.2 A].” R. Ashi posed a question, “[Does this mean] the majority was torn or the majority was removed?” Let us resolve this from what was taught on Tannaite authority, [If] the innermost belly [rumen] is pierced or the greater part of the outer [exterior coating] which is pierced [M. 3:1 F-G]. And they said in the West in the name of R. Yosé bar Hanina, “The entire rumen is called the inner rumen. And what then is the outer rumen? The fleshy membrane that covers the major part of the rumen [above XXI.1 E].”
C. But the basis for [posing a question regarding] this matter [is not according to Yosé bar Hanina]. Rather it is according to Samuel. And lo, said R. Jacob bar Nahmani, said Samuel, “[The innermost belly is] in the part that has no furry lining [XXI.1 C].” [Because the Mishnah does not refer to the membrane it cannot be used as proof.]
XXVI.1
A. And one which has been mauled by a wolf [M. 3:1 J]. Said R. Judah, said Rab, “For beasts [that were mauled, the Mishnah means] by a wolf or [by any animal] larger than that [in size]. And for birds [that were mauled, the Mishnah means] by a hawk or [by any bird of prey] larger than that [in size].”
B. What does this [statement] exclude? If it excludes [the case of] a cat [that mauls] it was taught, And one which has been mauled by a wolf. And if you wish to say this [particular statement of the Mishnah] makes the novel point that a wolf can maul even a large animal [but as to a cat we might assume it could maul a small animal], but lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority, R. Judah says, “One mauled by a wolf, in the case of a small beast, and one mauled by a lion in the case of a large beast [M. 3:1 K].”
C. And if you wish to say that R. Judah is in dispute [with J of M.], lo said R. Benjamin bar Yefet, said R. Ila [var. Eleazar], “R. Judah only comes to interpret the words of the sages [not to dispute them].”
D. There is a contradiction between the teachings of this man [Rab] and that man [Ila or Eleazar]. [Rab assumes that Judah does dispute J of M. Accordingly he teaches the rule of A to exclude animals smaller than a wolf that maul small cattle.]
E. If you prefer another possibility: It is consistent [to say that the Mishnah] excludes [mauling by] a cat. What might you have said? That it just taught the more common [case of a wolf]. It comes to make the novel point [that it means specifically a wolf and that a cat is excluded].
XXVI.2
A. Said R. Amram, said R. Hisda, “Mauling by a cat or a marten [renders the animal terefah] in the case of goats and lambs. Mauling by a weasel [renders the animal terefah] in the case of fowl.”
B. They raised an objection: Mauling by a cat, hawk or marten [does not render an animal terefah] until it pierces the abdominal cavity. But [this implies that] the mauling [itself without piercing] does not render it [terefah].
C. And how do you make sense of this? Is a hawk not capable of mauling? But lo it is taught on Tannaite authority, One mauled by a hawk [M. 3:1 K]. Lo this is not a contradiction. This one [in M.] refers to fowl and this one [in B] refers to goats and lambs.
D. But in any case it does contradict the view of R. Hisda. For he stated matters in accord with this Tanna. For it was taught on Tannaite authority, Beribbi says, “They only stated [that a cat] does not maul in an instance where there is no one trying to save [the animal or bird. For then the cat is not as vicious.] But in an instance where there is someone trying to save [the animal or bird, a cat becomes more vicious and] does maul.”
E. [But is it true that cat] does not maul in an instance where there is no one trying to save [the animal or bird]? But lo [consider this case]: There was a chicken in the house of R. Kahana. A cat ran after it and it went into a room and the door slammed in the cat's face and it scratched the door in anger. And they found on it five drops of blood [Rashi: the poison of five fingers of the cat, indicating that the cat could have mauled the chicken]. [We can respond to this objection that when the animal tries] to save itself, it is the same as if others tried to save it [from the mauling].
F. And [how do we explain this poison on the door in accord with the view of] the rabbis [who say that a cat does not maul]? [They say that a cat] has poison but that it does not contaminate [enough to constitute a mauling of the organs that would render the animal or bird terefah].
G. There are those that say [that R. Hisda says that even where no one tries to save the animal, there is mauling. And the Mishnah specifies a wolf for a case of mauling of large sheep. And the baraita that says it must pierce the abdominal chamber] in accord with whom is this [rule that it must penetrate]? In accord with Beribbi.
H. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: Beribbi says, “They only stated [that a cat] does maul in an instance where there is someone trying to save [the animal or bird. For then the cat is vicious.] But in an instance where there is no one trying to save [the animal or bird, a cat becomes less vicious and] does not maul.”
I. [But is it true that cat] does not maul in an instance where there is no one trying to save [the animal or bird]? But lo [consider this case]: There was a chicken in the house of R. Kahana. A cat ran after it and it went into a room and the door slammed in the cat's face and it scratched the door in anger. And they found on it five drops of blood [Rashi: the poison of five fingers of the cat, indicating that the cat could have mauled the chicken]. [We can respond to this objection that when the animal tries] to save itself, it is the same as if others tried to save it [from the mauling].
No comments:
Post a Comment